Magnet Middle School Thread: MAP scores and results

[Anonymous]

It is remarkable to me that as a matter of policy MCPS does not provide a sufficient level of instruction for probably over a thousand middle school kids, only because they are high performers and the presumption is that they will be fine anyway.

The fact that there are only 4 such magnets in a school district with 250,000 kids is unconscionable. They should double it and make 8 magnets which will allow for 2 (1xSTEM, 1xhumanitites) in each corner of the county. Or better yet, put them all in schools with high FARMS so that there can be voluntary busing. That will kill two birds with one stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.

Probably home school is a big factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.

Probably home school is a big factor.

We were at a focus school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable to me that as a matter of policy MCPS does not provide a sufficient level of instruction for probably over a thousand middle school kids, only because they are high performers and the presumption is that they will be fine anyway.

The fact that there are only 4 such magnets in a school district with 250,000 kids is unconscionable. They should double it and make 8 magnets which will allow for 2 (1xSTEM, 1xhumanitites) in each corner of the county. Or better yet, put them all in schools with high FARMS so that there can be voluntary busing. That will kill two birds with one stone.

This would be wonderful. Great suggestion. Wish they’d do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable to me that as a matter of policy MCPS does not provide a sufficient level of instruction for probably over a thousand middle school kids, only because they are high performers and the presumption is that they will be fine anyway.

The fact that there are only 4 such magnets in a school district with 250,000 kids is unconscionable. They should double it and make 8 magnets which will allow for 2 (1xSTEM, 1xhumanitites) in each corner of the county. Or better yet, put them all in schools with high FARMS so that there can be voluntary busing. That will kill two birds with one stone.

I am curious, but if a kid is getting all A’s and high test scores, than this an indication that they are learning and applying what they are learning. How can we also say they are high performing and also argue that they are not learning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable to me that as a matter of policy MCPS does not provide a sufficient level of instruction for probably over a thousand middle school kids, only because they are high performers and the presumption is that they will be fine anyway.

The fact that there are only 4 such magnets in a school district with 250,000 kids is unconscionable. They should double it and make 8 magnets which will allow for 2 (1xSTEM, 1xhumanitites) in each corner of the county. Or better yet, put them all in schools with high FARMS so that there can be voluntary busing. That will kill two birds with one stone.

This would be wonderful. Great suggestion. Wish they’d do it!

Or just get rid of them and provide the same programs at each middle school.

[Anonymous]

I assume all kids placed in the pools will be placed in the corresponding enriched class in MS (AIM and Historical Inquiries), but it also appears that our MS now only offers AIM and not IM anymore, and AIM was pre-registered for my kid, and not dependent on enrichment department recommendation like historical inquiries. Does anyone know if there have been changes to the math enrichment recommendation process? When I went through this 3 years ago (the first year they offered the enriched MS classes), we had to await the recommendations for both math and humanities, so was surprised to see math wasn’t like that this year. Makes me wonder if the AIM isn’t so enriched anymore.

FWIW, my kid was placed in both pools and didn’t get into either program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am curious, but if a kid is getting all A’s and high test scores, than this an indication that they are learning and applying what they are learning. How can we also say they are high performing and also argue that they are not learning?

This is before we moved here, but my DC was a high performer for years without learning anything. When your kid has already met grade level standards before the school year starts, the teachers are free to ignore them entirely. (And no, before you ask, we did not supplement.) I think this gets harder to do as the kids get older because there’s more content in science and social studies, and math introduces more new concepts. But for kids who pick up new material easily, they can perform extremely well without ever being challenged, even in the upper grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.

Probably home school is a big factor.

Actually, it isn't. This is a lottery. Selections are from the pool at random. It issn't about the best score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume all kids placed in the pools will be placed in the corresponding enriched class in MS (AIM and Historical Inquiries), but it also appears that our MS now only offers AIM and not IM anymore, and AIM was pre-registered for my kid, and not dependent on enrichment department recommendation like historical inquiries. Does anyone know if there have been changes to the math enrichment recommendation process? When I went through this 3 years ago (the first year they offered the enriched MS classes), we had to await the recommendations for both math and humanities, so was surprised to see math wasn’t like that this year. Makes me wonder if the AIM isn’t so enriched anymore.

FWIW, my kid was placed in both pools and didn’t get into either program.

I don’t know if that is MCPS-wide, but it was true at our home MS as well. For current 7th and 8th graders, AIM classes were a cohort of highly able students as defined by MCPS central office. No parent referrals, no teacher referrals, nothing. Then, all of a sudden, for this year’s 6th graders, IM disappeared and everyone coming out of compact math was in AIM. As far as I know, HIGH is still a separate cohort.

[Anonymous]

If your child is at Pyle AIM got watered down after the first year. So many parents asked the second year that it was basically everyone so this year they put everyone in IM in AIM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume all kids placed in the pools will be placed in the corresponding enriched class in MS (AIM and Historical Inquiries), but it also appears that our MS now only offers AIM and not IM anymore, and AIM was pre-registered for my kid, and not dependent on enrichment department recommendation like historical inquiries. Does anyone know if there have been changes to the math enrichment recommendation process? When I went through this 3 years ago (the first year they offered the enriched MS classes), we had to await the recommendations for both math and humanities, so was surprised to see math wasn’t like that this year. Makes me wonder if the AIM isn’t so enriched anymore.

FWIW, my kid was placed in both pools and didn’t get into either program.

There was a recent thread discussing the math pathway and how it doesn't seem to be the same at all schools.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/946936.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a (hopefully correct) summary of Fall MAP scores reported in this thread so far. Although maybe we are all focusing too much on Fall MAP scores, but there really aren't a lot of other data points to consider.

MAP-M and Math magnet results:
232 - not in pool
234 - not in pool
242 - in pool
244 - in pool (selected)
245 - in pool
252 - in pool (selected)
255 - not in pool
255 - in pool
262 - in pool
268 - in pool
272 - in pool (and in-bounds for TPMS, but not selected)
283 - in pool

MAP-R and Humanities magnet results:
235 - in pool
235 - in pool
237 - in pool
238 - in pool
239- in pool (selected)
240- not in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
240 - in pool
245 - in pool
245 - in pool
256 - in pool

Thanks for compiling PP. It looks like they may have used the 240 cut-off for TPMS. This has been the traditional recommendation line for AIM in 6th, however it is not the Fall test that they usually consider. Interesting.

Add 240 map M and NOT in pool.

There goes another theory! Any Bs in math?

I wonder if they did do cutoffs by each school or type of school (like the CogAT percentiles). 240 is the 98%ile in the Fall, so that is a pretty steep cut-off for a lottery (not saying it shouldn't be steep, but for MCPS that is surprisingly steep).

As they said MAP is one of several factors that are weighed there's likely not a hard cutoff but a score that is derived from a combination of those things that determines pool eligibility.

Last year my child had higher map scores than all of these and only got waitlisted for one. It makes zero sense how they do it.

Probably home school is a big factor.

Actually, it isn't. This is a lottery. Selections are from the pool at random. It issn't about the best score.

The "lottery" does not explain how people with MAP-M of 255 and MAP-R of 240 did not even make the pool. In addition, I would be weary of assuming that there was just one pool. A random lottery could result in outcomes that MCPS may not find satisfactory, e.g. unequal gender, geographic or racial outcomes. My assumption is that to establish a facially racially neutral process, they allocated spots to each home school (or cluster) and created separate pools for each home school or cluster. The creation of the pools probably was done on a 50/50 gender basis. This would mimic sort of what they do with the CES selection process where they look at home school cohorts as a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume all kids placed in the pools will be placed in the corresponding enriched class in MS (AIM and Historical Inquiries), but it also appears that our MS now only offers AIM and not IM anymore, and AIM was pre-registered for my kid, and not dependent on enrichment department recommendation like historical inquiries. Does anyone know if there have been changes to the math enrichment recommendation process? When I went through this 3 years ago (the first year they offered the enriched MS classes), we had to await the recommendations for both math and humanities, so was surprised to see math wasn’t like that this year. Makes me wonder if the AIM isn’t so enriched anymore.

FWIW, my kid was placed in both pools and didn’t get into either program.

There was a recent thread discussing the math pathway and how it doesn't seem to be the same at all schools.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/946936.page

In all fairness, it appeared that AIM was not offered as it wasn’t listed in the course list for some reason but the counselor did say that it was an option at our home middle school. Hopefully at all the others too. There are 4 different math classes and I can’t really tell what the difference is except that AIM is the only way to get to algebra in 7th and you have to be recommended for it. The others were math 6, math 7 for sixth graders, and amp+.